Yeah as much as they could’ve, but the first round byes for conference champions needs to go. There is no world where Boise State and Arizona State should be in better positions than Ohio State, Penn State, Texas etc. OSU will be favored by more in their second round matchup than in their first round matchup LOL that should never happen
well done committee. PSU got the easy route. Refereeing at the Big ten was horrendous. Never seen anything like that... all four quarters! At least the entire world will be watching Oregon vs Ohio State or Texas. I am smelling BBQed Duck! Ohio State vs Penn state in the final. Easy street for the Nittany Lions. SMU and Boise State. Thanks committee. We Are!
It depends on how you look at it. Did they get the 12 best teams? No. Did they get the 12 teams that seem to deserve it based on their "rules"? Probably Did they get the most exciting teams and match ups? NOT EVEN CLOSE
I agree and I’m a Bama fan. My main gripe with the playoffs is how the automatic bids work. I personally just don’t like #16 and #17 going into conference champion week got to be in I just personally would’ve rather seen teams like SC or Ole Miss get in. Bama I think is a case they could get in but losing 2 easy games should definitely penalize you.
I’m old enough to remember last week when Joel Klatt ranked Texas, Penn State, and Notre Dame 2, 3, and 4, respectively, despite them all having the same number of quality wins as they do this week. Fascinating. And don’t remind him that he agreed with the committee’s rankings last week, and told us all year that conference championship losers shouldn’t and wouldn’t be punished for losing a game that other teams didn’t have to play.
@ His point about Oregon having an unfairly difficult path given that they should have the easiest is sound, and he gave the answer to that problem at the beginning: redo the format. It’s not a committee/rankings issue. If you gave the top 4 ranked teams byes and guaranteed a playoff spot (but no guaranteed seeding/bye) to the 5 highest ranked conference champs, the playoff would look like this: 1. Oregon 2. Georgia 3. Texas 4. Penn State 5. Notre Dame vs 12. Clemson 6. Ohio State vs 11. Arizona State 7. Tennessee vs 10. SMU 8. Indiana vs 9. Boise State That’s how it should look, and that would be fair. Now, he did make a good point about lower tier conferences having a pointless conference championship (SMU, Boise, and ASU would’ve been in regardless with no bye, so why play it in this hypothetical format?) but that’s for the conferences themselves to decide and fix. I will say though, while the ACC championship was pointless for SMU individually, for the ACC as a whole it was great because it gave them an opportunity for two teams in the playoff instead of 1. So it’s not as bad as Klatt makes it out to be.
SMU making it in makes no sense. Inferior conference, didn’t play any of the good teams in their conference and the ranked teams they played against they lost to. That is a blatant fraudulent team
Alabama never should have been ranked at 11 to begin with after the horrendous loss to OU. If the committee just got their rankings right then this wouldn't even be an issue
Look at their wins. You might as well say Ole Miss and South Carolina shouldn’t have been where they were. Because Alabama has a better resume than both teams.
12:05 I keep hearing people saying that Alabama should just schedule cupcake nonconference games because of this. What they fail to realize is that Alabama getting left out had NOTHING to do with their nonconference schedule. Alabama didn’t get punished for losing a tough game to Ohio State or Oregon, they got punished for losing to two 6-loss teams in their own conference. Scheduling cupcakes wouldn’t have changed the fact that the tide lost to Vandy and got embarrassed by Oklahoma.
Sigh. Teams will focus on OOC because that's the only part of the schedule they can control. So many people are missing this. They can't adjust their conference schedule because it is given to them. The only way to make the schedule easier is OOC. No more UGA vs. Clemson. No reason to play the game. Loss hurts more than the win helps. People focus on Bama, but it's more than them. Talk about OOC because that's the only part schools control.
Wrong assessment…Alabama lost three games. If they would lost only 2 games they would be in. Strength of schedule only mattered this year according to how many games you lost. Everybody knows Boise and Arizona State don’t deserve a 1st round bye. If Indiana would have lost more than one game they would be out cause of the strength of their schedule.
This was barely watchable, and I usually love your show. I’ve been an SEC football homer my entire life, but Bama did not deserve a seed after getting their skull crushed by Vandy and OU. You can have the opinion that Bama is better than SMU, but SMU competed to a high degree against the opponents which they were presented and Bama did not. You can make a much more reasonable case for Ole Miss or SC. Bama favoritism in the media is out of control.
Same boat, here, I had to turn it off and find this comment to like. So much of this take is BS. Teams weren't dropped as far for losing the conf championships because they lost close to highly ranked teams, so the metrics he quotes are out of context. Yes, the teams don't determine tiebreakers, they're set out at the beginning of the season... And yes hindsight shows some teams ended up with easier schedules, but tell that to the teams who thought Indiana would be a pushover... No one knows how a team will be until you play the games! Wins and Losses matter and who you lose to matters.
Bama beat sc and ole Miss beat sc so sc can't be in and I'm from Carolina and ole Miss lost at home to Kentucky and Florida which isn't any better than losing to Vandy and Oklahoma but at least you can make the argument but you can't put a team in over 2 teams they lost too they literally proved on the field who was better.
People focusing on Bama’s losses rather than their wins is why there happens to be a Bama argument to begin with. Bama had every chance to be in and it makes people so angry. They were properly ranked and their losses caught up to them. Just keep hating. It’s only making things funnier.
Comepeted too a high degree? They lost both games against the only ranked teams they played ? Bama beat 3 top 25 teams . Smu plays in a highschool conference
@@BartCathey-g2c the one bad loss from notre dame does not equate to 2 HORRIBLE losses by bama and one of them by 3 touchdowns. Enough with the niu thing it’s old, notre dame has played 10 games since and average margin of victory in the 30s
@@BartCathey-g2cit was bad loss but it was at the beginning of the season. You aren’t the same team from the beginning of the season and at the end. That was it and they blew everyone out. Alabama lost 3 teams time and two of those are bad. I can live with two losses and one of those being a bad loss, but not twice in year.
What would Indiana's, SMU's, Clemson's and ASU's record have been if they played Oklahoma's and/or Vandy's schedule ??? Sooners and Dores may not have been as bad as their record if they'd been in the other conferences. Think about it.
Alabama being left out certainly does not hurt the “integrity of the playoff.” Ignoring bad losses to Vanderbilt and Oklahoma is what would have hurt the integrity of the playoff.
Yes what a ridiculous statement. Doubt he even fully believed it. My guess is that FOX execs (who is in a financial relationship with one of the 2 super conferences) told him to say that.
But their out of conference schedule was easy. Their best team by a mile that they played was a 5-7 Wisconsin. And that's not even considering the fact they're playing a High School team in late November. How much easier of a nonconference schedule can they possibly want.
Alabama has played a marquee OOC team every year for 20 years. Bama lost 2 players in the Wiscy game that if they had played Wake Forest they probably don't lose those guys. NO WAY would I play Ohio St and Notre Dame that are on future schedules and get beat up and then have to play the SEC schedule when I don't have to. SMU and Indiana proved you just need to win and not worry about your schedule. If I'm Bama I schedule 4 FCS teams in OOC since it doesn't matter.
Joel this 20 min rant about the teams that got in is just outrageous. I literally cannot think of what the committee got wrong. Maybe they should have put Clemson at 11 and Smu at 12 but those teams cannot be punished for losing a conference championship. Even if smu lost by 42 I would put them over Alabama to protect championships from boycotting
I feel like there is a misunderstanding of the committee's process. Their job is to rank the top 12 teams, which they did as: 1. Oregon 2. Georgia 3. Texas 4. Penn State 5. Notre Dame 6. Ohio State 7. Tennessee 8. Indiana 9. Boise State 10. SMU 11. Alabama 12. Arizona State These teams are the slotted into the bracket based on the requirements set by the bracket format. Alabama was left out solely because Clemson won the ACC, which gave them an automatic bid despite being ranked outside of the top 12, and Arizona State won the Big 12 which gave them an automatic bid despite being ranked lower than Alabama. I would argue that these ranking are reasonable in isolation, and most fans wouldn't be upset about them. The issue comes from how the bracket is filled based on these top teams - we end up with scenarios like the one we are in now entirely because of the automatic bids for conference champions and the automatic byes for conference champions. If we did not have these auto-bids and auto-byes, the bracket would look as follows: Round 1: 5 Notre Dame vs. 12 Arizona State 6 Ohio State vs. 11 Alabama 7 Tennesee vs. 10 SMU 8 Indiana vs. 9 Boise State Round 2: 1. Oregon vs [8 Indiana or 9 Boise State] 2. Georgia vs [7 Tennesee or 10 SMU] 3. Texas vs [6 Ohio State or 11 Alabama] 4. Penn State vs [5 Notre Dame or 12 Arizona State] And so on... In my opinion this bracket scenario with no automatic bids based only on the top 1-12 rankings is well-balanced. This clearly shows that the issue with the current playoff is the format, and not the way that the committee chose to rank the teams. The committee's job is not to slot teams into the bracket based on the restrictions that the bracket imposes, but rather to simply rank the top teams from 1 to 12, which they did. The implication that the committee went out of their way to rig the system in favor of a certain team (Bama vs. SMU) is ridiculous because they clearly state in their rankings that they believe that both teams are top 12 teams. ( collegefootballplayoff.com/rankings.aspx )
But of course we should continue with the same way they chose teams from last year QB hurt and out team is out too so that means Georgia is out of the playoffs OOPS would that be bad for the sec......but it was ok for FSU and the ACC,,,,
@@richardwestern9546 I totally see your frustration here, I do think it's worth adding though that the committee last year did put FSU as the 5th team in the nation, so they only dropped one position (from what I remember) due to that injury. With that precedent set, though, I could see why people believe that Georgia shouldn't be ranked 2nd right now seeing as their quarterback is hurt. I don't believe that they should be ranked low enough that it would knock them out of the playoff though, since not even FSU was knocked out of the top 5 last year. Also worth noting that even if the committee ranked Georgia outside of the top 12, they would still have received an automatic bid into the playoff with the current (broken - in my opinion) format.
@@Ccal4142Gaming But the Committiee can do what ever they want and kick whoever they want out and put whoever they want in...SMU is very lucky. that Bama was not able to buy there way in.
Are we gonna ignore the fact that a major reason why conference runner ups only dropped 1 spot is because all of them came down to the last possession?
Exactly. And the reason no one is arguing for Iowa State is because they got their doors blown off. You can't devalue the conference title game. Otherwise teams will skip them altogether for getting penalized in a one possession loss.
Maybe because the #1 Seed Oregon has to play potentially the top 3 highest ranked teams to win the CFP after their bye even though they are the BIG TEN champions/#1 overall ranked team. They get the toughest path out of all of the conference champions. broken system.
absolutely Bama 0-2 against .500 teams in the SEC vs 6-0 for SMU against .500 teams in the ACC. That stat will serve them well when they face those .500 teams in the Bracket. Your right though Bama only has Bama to blame. bad bad coaching in 2 games cost them. But do not see them going anywhere, so the hate will continue.
@@fredgilley5378I can’t stand Bama but can’t ignore the quality wins they have that teams like SMU, Indiana, and Penn state do not. Yes those teams all have better records, but lost to the only real competition they faced. I am completely fine with Bama being out, but Strength of Schedule needs to become a factor going foward. UGA has played 6 games against the top 15 going 4-2. Why would they play a schedule that hard again if it isn’t?
Think about the OP comment. As a 2 loss team Bama would have been in. What does that tell you…. Strength of schedule only mattered this year if u lost. If you had a weak schedule and lost 2 games you were supposed to be out. The problem was the ACC was so bad this year. ACC should have only had one team get in and it should have been SMU. Clemson had three losses. Don’t care who those losses were against. That means you can’t beat those teams in the playoffs.
The problem is that 4 or 5 SEC teams didn't get in. If Alabama or another SEC team had gotten in, the story would be how great this new playoff is and we should have gone to it years ago.
Joel is heavily weighted best wins and want to completely discount worst loss(es). Alabama had TWO bad losses. SMU, PSU, and Indiana had no bad losses. Those teams played more consistently throughout the season. I do agree with him on reseeding after first round.
Are you going to play any .500 or sub .500 teams in the playoffs? No! So it shouldn't matter. You either can win big games or you can't. Penn State would fair much better if there was a NIT
Yep. And Nick Saban is NOT there to save Alabama with excellent coaching adjustments. Bama is no longer a juggernaut. This playoffs will be great for the College Game in general. There will likely be adjustments but quite frankly, if you are the 14th or 16th ranked team, you don’t probably need to be in the playoffs anyway. We only had FOUR teams just last year.
SMU, PSU, and Indiana didn’t have any “bad loses” because they DIDNT PLAY ANY DIFFICULT TEAMS! Put those teams in SEC and they’d be skulldrug every weekend. Let Alabama play their middle school opponents and they’ll be 12-0.
@@DavidC-pg6niyour response is irrelevant Alabama finished ranked 11 an a loss compared to 6 games were you barely scraped a win with 1 point it’s the issue here Mr sir
If #2 Texas loses to #5 Georgia, why would they fall 6 spots? Or if #3 Penn State loses to #1 Oregon. That was never going to happen. It feels like Joel is complaining about something that's not an issue. Who you play when you lose matters - not just that you were in the top 10 and you lost. Losing to Georgia Tech is a lot worse than losing to Georgia.
If you just blindly look at previous rankings then yes neither of those teams should be dropped but if you flip the perspective you realize that Ohio State is behind Penn state after beating them with a better resume and same amount of loses. Resumes have to be continuously reevaluated.
@@Likeaboss236OSU and PSU have the same number of losses but Penn States losses were to the at the time number 4 team in the country by one possession then to the undefeated number 1 team by 1 possession. Ohio State lost to Michigan… so they have the same number of losses, but those losses are not equal 😂
@@mainman8005 Lol I like how you said to the “number four team in the country” instead of saying they lost to the team they really ranked higher than. They both have loses to Oregon but Ohio Sate played them even closer and they were playing AT Oregon not a neutral field. They’re the better team dude.
You’re talking about dropping Texas and PSU for losing CCGs as much as teams losing to OU, UF, and UM who were barely .500? Make it make sense Joel. Those teams sat home while others played an extra tip 5 team.
@@kshay1882Tennnessee played 7 of the same teams as Texas and their only top 25 win is against the worst Bama team in 15 years. Ole Miss played 6 of the same teams as Texas and still choked on 3-unranked teams. Let’s not pretend like Texas had the weakest schedule when several teams had comparable if not nearly the same schedule.
@@kylewalker641 Tennessee is a nine seed though, so why is Texas the 5th seed? Ole Miss isn't even in the playoffs so I have no idea how they are relevant if your purpose is to justify Texas' seeding.
Tired of the “this conference is better than that conference”” blah blah. People hated on the Pac12 as the trash conference and now two of those teams are in the top 4 bracket. The other two conferences nearly had the noob teams to their conference win out as well with SMU and Texas. It’s all pandering. ANYONE can beat anyone else! Georgia, Alabama, OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Etc, are all flawed teams and lose to other sub teams. Happened and will continue to happen. NIL and portal has changed everything.
And don't forget Oregon coming in and winning the big10 which if you ask anyone other than an sec fan is considered a strong conference 😆 it hilarious to me how much joel flip flopped his position in the last 2 weeks, all season it was "you can't punish a team for playing in their conference championship" to last week and this week wanting to punish SMU for it...mind you while simultaneously not wanting to punish any other conference losers like penn state or Texas. Like let's look at Texas SOS and best wins and compare them to SMU and Bama, if we are punishing conference champion losers then you have to punish them all you can't just pick and choose which one you wanna punish because you think they are from a weaker conference. Not to mention the "stronger conference" argument is irrelevant for Bama they didn't have 3 losses to top teams like GA, Texas and Tennessee, they lost to freaking Vandy and Oklahoma, get over it they didn't deserve to go to are playoffs this year plain and simple. If Ohio state had lost to 2 unranked instead of just one and gotten left out nobody would be making the same arguments for them besides having the most top wins next to Oregon. The only valid things mention in this whole video is based on the overall bracket format in that the top ranked Oregon did not actually get the easiest path forward and so they are essentially being punished for winning out
The difference is... the B1G is known for being run by Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. And Oregon ran through the B1G powers in route to a B1G championship. Oregon earned the praise they are getting. The literal dichotomy of that is Texas's schedule. Who is the SEC known for? How many of those teams did Texas play? Texas had the easiest conference schedule in the SEC. For those who don't agree, simply name one, just one team that you think had an easier path in-conference. SMU had another easy path. They only had to take on a down FSU. The ACC is known to be a two team conference. It used to be Clemson and FSU (because CU, FSU, & Miami were never all good at the same time). This year, it was Clemson and Miami who were favored to win the conference. Then, they lost to a Clemson team that just lost to South Carolina and got curb stomped by Georgia. Who are the heavy hitters in the Big12? Personally, I don't know. I think it's widely accepted that the Big12 is currently the bottom of the power conferences (mainly because they no longer have any premier teams). Just like the G5, they only got 1 in, too. Coincidence?
@tremoore9831 waaay too many people are lol it's breaking my brain. They should have never jumped 3 spots for playing mercer but benefited from that hectic week, then only drop 4 when they get dog walked by a mediocre oklahoma the next week. The problem is they should have been dropped waaay lower after that oklahoma loss
The committee actually did a good job. Better than those atrocious rankings you put out on Saturday night. What is with your insistence on rewarding teams like notre dame and Ohio state for sitting on the couch this weekend? It’s borderline ridiculous. Calling the committee “inconsistent” for understanding that conference championship games shouldn’t be punishing teams makes zero sense because during the regular season everyone is playing every weekend. That was clearly not the case this weekend. There’s no inconsistency because the situations are clearly different. Period.
The root of the seeding problem is not conference championship games, it's that the SEC and ACC only play 8 conference games. Bama had a paper soft non-conference schedule and lost to 3 SEC opponents, including 2 bad ones. So it's on the SEC and the SEC alone that they only got 3 teams in. Schedule 9 or 10 conference games and stop playing division 2 teams in November.
I just don’t get this argument. The big10 and big12 also play 3 terrible teams out of conference most of the time. The ACC and SEC have 8 teams combined that are less than .500 while the other 2 conferences have 7-8 each. You could really argue that the big10 and big12 playing 9 conference games actually makes their schedule weaker. I’m not a bama fan but they played Wisconsin as one of their out of conference games and only played 1 of the 3 SEC teams that finished below .500. Georgia played Clemson week 1 and Georgia tech. Texas played Michigan. No one wants to see 9 conference games when 5 of them are against sub .500 teams. I think it needs to be 8 conference games + 3 p4 games + 1 FCS game. Thats the only way to see how these conferences stack up to each other.
What would really fix this is every conference plays 8 game conference. 3 non-conference games against similar placed teams from the other p4 conference (using last year's conference finish) and 1 cupcake. This would be a great way to measure each conference against each other for the end of year strength of schedule debates.
@ 100% on board for that. Let’s also do this: if your cumulative record in the BCS/CFP era is below .500 you get dropped out of the p4. There’s no reason teams that are horrible year after year who’s only goal as a program is to become bowl eligible should be in the p4.
Joel had it right a few weeks ago when he said that teams should not be punished for getting to the conference championship game. Then, last week, he suddenly changed his mind and thought that Penn State and SMU would be punished. He shouldn't have changed his mind for the (great) reasons he gave a few weeks ago why a championship game shouldn't hurt a team. He was wrong. The committee got it right. (Although, as a Buckeyes fan, it would have been better for us if he were right).
@GoatedAtNFS why? What's your take. Let's hear how smart you are unless you're a troll. Especially being penn state had a chance to beat the #1 Team and showed out.
“Bama’s better than SMU”. Really? Which Bama? Certainly not the one that couldn’t find the end zone in Norman in November. Certainly not the Bama that lost three regular season games including a slopfest at Vanderbilt. Klatt is a favorite of mine, but I loathe the certainty in which talking heads offer speculative assessments about notoriously inconsistent teams. Alabama lost a 1/4 of its regular season games, ffs. Better than SMU? With which Milroe?
Were you planning on looking at their upsides or just theyre downsides to fit your narritive. Listen buddy its okay to just say you hate bama and move on.
I agree with the sentiment that teams not being ranked by "best" in the at-large spots ends up punishing Oregon. But using Texas as the example is really odd. If you swap them and Ohio State in seeding, Oregons path isnt any easier. Texas would be favored over Ohio State on a neutral field right now. Penn State, sure. But Texas? No, not really.
I dont understand the argument of losing a extra played game in the confrence championship. Compared to losing a regular season game. It is a extra game that could knock you out of the playoffs if you lose compared to sitting at home. If they did that next season no team will want to play a confrence championship game. In fact the only time a extra game would be needed is if two teams have the same record and didnt play each other. Which those teams would want to be co-confrence champions to not lose a playoff spot. Funny how getting rid of confrence championship games can make it worse for college football.
@@kimberlyashcraft7841 You could say the same about Alabama or Ole Miss joining the Big 12 if they really wanted to and cared so much about making the playoffs, since it's supposedly so easy.
The question has always been have some of the teams ahead of them played their ways in? Smu surely didn't... played nobody all year and a lose helped them😂😂
The fact that people think that the sec's ranking really means anything? when 3 and 4 loss teams get ranked ahead of 1 and 2 loss teams, sec bias and $$$$$ Bama could play 10 sec ranked teams and it wont matter anymore if they loose to 3 or 4 of them lol lol lol lol lol. the rest of the ncaaf is awake now because if NIL and the fact that now everyone can pay there players not just Bama.
@richardwestern9546 still makes no sense lol what you are talking about is subjective... I'm literally talking about numbers and things that can be quantified. It's well known that the acc doesn't compare to the sec. Case in point Clemson. The same team that beats your pick (smu) is the same team that lost 2 out of 3 games to the sec. You can like that the sec didn't get the last spot that's fine but you in the same breath can't say that the team that was picked was the best option. Maybe the least controversial
@@kenfelder6478 Well if you think in controversial times let's put Bama in and Georgia out the same way they left the undefeated FSU out last year since there QB is hurt lol lol lol
The SMU vs Bama debate is for casuals. The real story is how Oregon ( and to a lesser extent Georgia) got tougher draws thsn the teams they beat in the conference title games
@@anthonycollier3183I would disagree Texas had the easiest path to the championship with their schedule, only 2 games against top 25 in a stacked SEC conference doesn’t sound like a good SOS to me
Teams in conference championships absolutely should have an “artificial floor”. There’s no way a team sitting on the couch should jump teams that earned a 13th game. And your comments on the Penn st tie breaker directly contradicts what was said about strength of schedule. Like you said “the record of teams they play is nothing they can control”
Alabama has 3 losses, including two against 6-6 teams. I don't wanna hear any crying about them not making the playoffs. And yes, SMU deserves to be in ahead of them, no debate.
Yes, "we only had one loss against winning teams" means "we had two losses against teams who weren't winning teams". There's no way to move the toothpaste around the "3 losses, 2 bad losses" tube that creates more toothpaste.
I think you can say SMU deserved the spot while also saying that Alabama is the better team. I wanted SMU in, but also think that Alabama is one of the 12 best teams in the country. I think that was Joel’s point, that when you put teams in that deserve to be in (which I agree with) you won’t necessarily have the 12 best teams in the playoff.
@@Ty-rq3ye who cares if at your ceiling you are one of the 12 best when quite a few times you play well below your ceiling? Most deserving is more honorable and fair than "best." If best was the way would we even demand that teams win their games or we just look at their potential/roster??? Effort and execution count in addition to talent/potential.
If they didn't play the conference championship games at all Oregon would still be playing the winner of Ohio State vs Tennessee. The only difference is ASU would be the 12th seed, bama would be the 11th, Boise would be the 4th, and SMU would be the 3rd. Texas and Penn State were already ranked ahead of ND, Ohio State, and Tennessee and still was Georgia. So do you really think barely losing that extra 13th game against some of the best teams in the country warrants falling below teams you were already ranked ahead of? If you have a problem with the way teams were seeded it isn't because of the conference championship games but because of the way the committee ranked the teams before the conference championship games. And I agree that committee messed some things up like ND being ranked so high despite the worst loss of any playoff team and a weak schedule. ND had no reason to be ranked higher than SMU or Indiana and neither did Texas for that matter. The big 12 teams being so far down the rankings while teams like Miami are way up there like BYU didn't literally beat SMU on the road. The committee got a lot of things wrong but not pushing teams for close losses in a 13th game that they have to play isn't one of them
You can tell who’s not football fans. Alabama played Georgia, Vandy, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri & LSU in a row. But people bring up the fact that they played Mercer right after that gauntlet. Vandy was no slouch I think in another conference they would be in the top 3. I hope SEC teams start avoiding one another like the other conferences. Indiana in no way shape or form should be in! They played 1 good team and got beat by 30
The CFP committee totally got it right We use the same type of approach in college basketball Sometimes the underdog wins a conference championship tourney
Alabama shouldn't have even been considered. This playoff format is infinitely better than what we've ever had as college football fans. Nobody can argue that the best team nationally was left out, and whomever wins is the undisputed champ. That's the WHOLE point.
Perhaps the committee devalued Ohio State because of their loss to unranked Michigan? Also, strange that a Dawg is acting as an attorney for Big Orange, but why is OSU seeded above Tennessee? Tennessee's losses were on the road at Arkansas and Georgia. OSU lost to an unranked team at home. Ditto Notre Dame who lost at home to an unranked G5 team. Why are they seeded above either OSU or Tennessee?
This is nonsense. Just a few weeks ago Mr. Klatt was talking about how the conference championship games should not penalize teams for losing since it’s an extra game. Alabama was neither the most deserving nor best last year. FSU was the most deserving, Georgia was the best of those three.
Regarding punishing people for playing in their conf championship games. I agree they shouldnt be punished, but at the same time winning your conf game is a big boon (in this format at least, boise st and az state should NOT have a bye) so its hard to have conf champ games be pure upside with no downside.
The obvious rebuttal to Joel’s “teams should be punished for losing conference championship games” is “teams shouldn’t be rewarded for failing to qualify for conference championship games because they lost games they shouldn’t”. For me it’s as simple as that. Ohio State finished fourth in the big ten and should be ranked higher than 8th overall? Alabama finished fourth in the SEC with three losses and should be in over SMU who finished second in a “power conference”? If you want the regular season to matter you shouldn’t be rewarding teams that finish that low in their own conference. I think the committee got it right
Ohio State is the third best team in the Big 10 on record but after Michigan ramming it down their throat it is clear they don't have the real jam to win a Natty
The issue was, as he explained, Bama’s path to the SEC is extremely different than SMU’s path in the ACC. So there’s a lot of context around just making it to a conference championship. The problem is that conferences with a couple of good teams get an artificial advantage.
Smu only played 2 teams with winning record in conference play. Texas only played 2 teams with winning records in conference play. Tennesse only played 2 teams with winning records in conference play. Its wild how this worked out, maybe no more none power 4 games or maybe only 1
I think after this week, the dust will settle on Alabama and SMU debate and people will start looking at the more important issue with Oregon’s “reward”.
Keep selection the same, but have the first round be all 12 teams playing, highest vs lowest seed, with the highest 2 remaining seeds getting a second round bye into the semi-finals
Losses matter. If you give AL so much credit for beating UGA, SC and MO you have to balance that with bad losses to VAN, OK and a decent loss to TN. No one is talking about Indiana not even playing a ranked team other than OSU, yet they are still ranked ahead of SMU and the SEC teams. If you criticize SMU's easy path to the ACC championship but ignore Indiana it's a hollow argument.
i don’t feel bad for teams that didn’t make the CFP if they didn’t make the conference championship game…. win your games and it wouldn’t be a problem.
Even if you don't "penalize" teams for conference championship game participation, you don't have to reward them for participation. The better answer would have been ranking Texas where they actually belonged -- outside of the top 12 and, if they won the conference championship game, seed them as required.
The committee is a joke 8 of these teams dont belong in this playoff. 4 of the teams can beat all 8. 2 can beat 10 of them. The 2 that can are not Big10, Big12, Pac, Midwest, or Acc.
I pretty much always agree with you Joel and I understand your analysis here. I would just push back that the resume for Texas actually was better than Ohio State’s and the other teams you mentioned when the season concluded. Texas had lost once, beat the team that just beat Ohio state at home, and had taken care of business convincingly throughout the year. They were ranked number 2 when the season ended and deserved to be there. Other teams with harder schedules had the opportunity to have a more impressive season/resume… but they all lost games they shouldn’t have. Texas didn’t
I feel this. Every single game you have an opportunity to build your resume by winning games, or at least keeping the games as competitive as possible. Every single game is a data point. Treat the season like a de facto tournament. If you fall a quarter of your games and can't make a CCG then you're clearly not even Top 2 in your conference and at that point I wouldn't (and don't think anyone should) be dropping tears over their teams no making it. Be upset at your team for not taking care of business, don't be mad at others for winning just because you have a superiority complex and believe you should be rewarded regardless of game outcomes.
I think this playoff is perfect, it allows smaller schools an opportunity to play for the playoffs, if you’re super at being left out don’t lose and you won’t have that problem. I’m tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs this is perfect for all schools!
Well said. The "best teams" are sure to be included and the conference champions are rewarded. I don't really care about the other slots, but it's good to include teams like SMU that you would not normally see.
As an Alabama alum who has been a fan for more than sixty years, I can tell you ANY TEAM THAT LOSES TO VANDERBILT HAS NO BUSINESS playing for a National Championship.
It pains me to say this, Being an SEC conference fan, but I love college football. I think that Oregon and Penn State are the two best teams in college football, and I think one of them will win it all. I'm super happy that Colorado isn't in it, talk about overrated, my gosh, if they play a real college football competition they'd be lucky to win 6 games.
@kyle89236 agreed. Every year the top 15 is loaded with 5-6-7 SCHEDULE EASY CUPCAKES......,ERRR, I mean SEC teams. Rigged and corrupt go hand in hand here.
The committee values bad losses. Period. You can't lose to 7-5 Michigan at home or 6-6 Vanderbilt/OU and expect to say that you're better than a team just because they don't have any Top 25 wins. It's not Texas and to a lesser degree SMU's fault that they don't have any top 25 wins if all of their games are against #2 Georgia and then #26-60. There is literally nothing else that they could do. I hate the "resumé" argument.
Values bad losses LMAOOOOOOOOO!!! Seriously? More reason for Alabama to do like SMU, Clemson, etc and play only high school teams. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to have bad losses when a team doesn’t play any difficult teams. Proving Alabama’s point while complaining about Alabama. Love it
It is quite literally Texas and SMU's fault they didnt play anyone, they're ADs make the schedule. The comitee was very clear SOS does not matter at all, 5/12 playoff teams dont have a ranked win.
@@GMS8201Nah, Even in the NFL, the NFC South is often terrible. The NFC “Least” was terrible another year. Some teams got in with bad win / loss records AND got a home game Seed. SAME as this format. Nothing is perfect. Deal with it.
@@kimberlyashcraft7841NOPE. Bama got beat DOWN by a BAD team IN CONFERENCE. Period. Don’t get blown out LATE in the year by BAD teams. Nick Saban’s GONE bama. Nobody saving you no more.
Joel, I agree with you on most things. Where we disagree is the value of conference championship games. Teams that lost should not be dropping the avg 6 spots like the regular season because it was an extra game on their schedule. If you did that then teams may try and sabotage their chance of making a conference championship for fear of dropping at the last second. Teams like Indiana, Ohio State and Tennessee all got to sit back and rest knowing there was no way they would miss the college football playoffs. Winners or losers of conference championship games should not shift much if really at all. I think the avg 1 spot is perfect 👌
This is such a good point. So Joel thinks teams that played in the conference championship games and lost should now be ranked below some teams that didn't have to play CCG but are still in the playoffs is ludicrous.
The format needs adjusting for sure - but if teams knew they would be punished for losing conference championship games then anyone with a shot at home game in the first round or bye based on the rankings the week before championships would opt out and not want to play and keep their ranking like everyone else not playing. Conference championships are rewards, why should they get punished for a game the other playoff teams don’t have a chance to play in (i get punishing them if they are complete blowouts but most were close) - Penn State for example everyone thought they’d be sitting home watching Ohio State and Oregon for the title, and be able to maintain their CFP home game position… but Ohio state loses to Michigan and they get the conference title game. You shouldn’t be dropping 6 positions in the rankings for playing an extra game others didn’t get to play, or it wouldn’t be worth playing. And they’d opt out of conference championships so that they don’t lose and risk dropping. The committee made it clear early on that conference championships so contenders wouldn’t be punished for losing and that’s what they did, unfortunate for some fans of other schools but it is what it is. This format values conference championships, everyone knew the previous week rankings so all the championships really did was secure the byes. Also the teams sitting home during conference championships got a built in bye week by not playing to at least look at teams they might get to play and rest up… the losers of conference title games have to play two weeks later vs the ones who didn’t make it have 3 weeks before their first game… you shouldn’t be rewarded by jumping teams that played in close conference title games while you sat home. Klatt wouldn’t be complaining had say Ohio State/Oregon lost in the title game and got the 5 spot, or had some other beloved school had the same. Look I get it, both Ohio State and Penn State had two loses, and Penn State’s were to Ohio State and Oregon, and Penn State never wins the big games - do I entirely believe that Penn State is better? - no I don’t, but had Ohio State won against Michigan and had Notre Dame not lost to NIU it’d be a different story and he wouldn’t be complaining. You can’t call Ohio State’s best win as Penn State and simultaneously say it was a Michigan or NIU level loss for Penn State.
I feel for the players. Some of these teams may have to play 17 games this season. That seems crazy to me. Many players will now be used up before they can even turn pro.
Klatt being a baby because he wants Big 10 easy path. Oregon, Georgia they’ll BOTH take all comers and handle business (or not) and they will show what they’re made of in the playoffs. What teams are on paper don’t matter when it’s “Win or Go Home”.
I just absolutely disagree with you on this Joel. I think there should be no penalty for losing in the conference championship game. It is something no one else has to play in. And you should only have upside and no downside for losing in that game
@@JBBarri get that but I still disagree. Because if that had happened In the future teams would forgo the championship game and just go straight into the playoff. I think it should be a rule that you cannot drop behind anyone who wasn’t playing in a conference championship game
To be clear, there should be an explicit rule that the committee cannot take a school that earned a spot in the CCG, and place them behind any conference partner that did not make the CCG.
@@BruceMcFarling I don’t know if I agree with that. Especially because of non conference play. But I just think you should have a rule that losing in a CCG cannot drop you
Bama set that period when they got mollywhopped by a BAD Oklahoma Late in the Season. Win (or even be close) in that game and bama has a case. Got smashed late in the year and deserved to sit at home.
everyone knows smu should be out and how did a arizona state make it? Neither team was ranked in the top 12. So you play worse teams and get rewarded at a higher standard than actual deserving teams
This whole thing is so subjective beyond conference champs.... I could argue for BYU over SMU, for example (BYU's better schedule and head-to-head win). I'm not saying BYU should be there. I am saying those last few spots could reasonably be given a handful of different teams.....
Can't punish teams because they don't play in the Conference you want them to play in. They play the teams on their schedule. They won their games, they should not be punished. The NFL and NBA have weak Divisions but the best team from make the playoffs and sometimes they win the Super Bowl or NBA Finals
I’m sorry Joel but there’s no way they will ever make the decision to nerf conference title games. They bring in too much money and that’s all the playoff is about now.
Nonsense. The top 8 teams are in there for sure. (And a few others.) The BEST team at the end of the season will likely WIN. No nonsense about FSU being left out. Or other close calls. Way better than the four team (heavy ranking bias) that might have left out the best team.
12 team playoff is based around most deserving/best overall. SMU deserved more than Alabama, if Alabamas losses were to ranked power teams then maybe they can argue to be in. But they were to subpar teams and that matters.
@ although I agree 100% we have to accept that total wins should weigh as much as SOS. ASU deserves to have a bye for their success as much as Georgia does. They should have a seat at the table for being a conference winner. The bottom 4 slots of the playoff should exclusively be for highest ranked teams unless there is a top 12 conference loser, at that point they slide into that 12-9 slot depending on seeding. Alabama may hate the decision but they lost to bad teams, it might’ve been different tif the losses were to better teams, MAYBE but they blew it.
@@nicmckeever8551You're right, it should've just been 3 other SEC teams in the playoff cause they're the only ones that deserve to grace the same soil as Georgia.
Joel I love you but you must have amnesia, you covered the game where OSU lost to Michigan who barely became bowl eligible this year. I understand head to head and who did you beat. But what also counts is who did you lose to and how! The argument needs to work both ways for every team being evaluated. Teams who sit at home should not be rewarded as well, if not PSU can just not play the game and still be ranked ahead of OSU. You are bright and I know you know this.
The difficult path of Oregon has far more to do with the structure of the playoffs (automatic bye for the top 4 conference champs and no re-seeding after the first round) than with ranking Texas, Penn State, and SMU too highly. For example, if you swap Ohio State and Texas, Oregon ends up potentially playing the exact same teams, just in a different order.
The fact that if u get a bye ur still playing the same amount of games and probably have a harder path than other teams that didnt play an extra conference championship game is crazy
I say get rid of first round byes, highest two remaining seeds get second round byes into the semi-finals. Lowest remaining seeds play the second round
Here's the thing with Joel's reseeding argument. Under the current format, Oregon would still likely play Ohio State or Tennessee even if it was reseeded after the first round. Reseeding doesn't help when you're giving 2 cupcake conference chanps the 3rd and 4th seed
I hear what you're saying but I don't think that's right. Ohio state is ranked 6th in the country what is the 8th seed, I think instead of what Joel stated what needs to happen is awarding automatic buys to conference champions no other sport does this for the record LOL if you want to give the conference champions a shot in the playoffs I think we're all good with that but there's no way on Earth Arizona State or Boise State should get a free pass. They should be the lowest seeds
Reseeding works if you don't give auto byes to all the conference champs. Give the auto bids to the conference champs, but give the byes to the teams actually ranked 1-4.
Joel, your argument makes sense. One quick way to eliminate the "artificial floor" is to give the byes to the final Top 4 ranked teams, regardless of conference championship. You still include 5 conference champions in the bracket. If they fall outside the ranked Top 12, they are placed at the bottom. In this example, ASU and Clemson slide in at 11 and 12, respectively. That sets up a scenario in which #1 Oregon would play Indiana/Boise State, #2 Georgia gets Ohio State/Arizona State, #3 Texas gets Tennessee/SMU, and #4 Penn State gets Notre Dame/Clemson. These feel like more balanced matchups that honor the regular season, conference championships, and strength of schedule. And no, Bama did not deserve to get in. Win your games!
the only thing wrong with this bracket was giving Ohio State the home game instead of Tennessee. Ohio State gets EMBARRASSED by a lagging Michigan team? AT HOME? That shouldn't be rewarded with a home playoff game.
stop crying about seeding. everyone that should have a shot at the national championship is in. now it is on the team to earn their championship ring. people in life are born with different starting points. doesn’t mean it’s right but that’s how life works.
It is so interesting how strength of schedule is so important but horrible losses are omitted. For those who have an issue with SMU, take it up with the alumni.
The entire resume-based argument completely disregards Penn State and Texas 11 win record over OSU and Tennessee's 10 win record. There would be no argument if they hadn't lost a second regular season game, but they did.
Joel: OSU is better than Texas. Texas dominated UM to the point they needed to reset, and UM beats OSU. So curious the logic to justify that statement Joel. Also, a big reason Oregon has such a tough path with the lineup to win the chip, is because no reseeding based on rank after every round. In thinking about the current seeding is the #1 will always have the hardest path; that needs to change. Also, big fan always enjoyed it.
why every team who previously has never made the playoff, made the playoffs: Penn State: can’t win big time games Tennessee: can’t beat Georgia and Alabama in the same year SMU: just came from G5 Boise State: G5 Indiana: they’ve been dead in the water until the portal rules changed Arizona State: because the Pac-12 crumbles late every year
No the answer is there are 12 teams this year not 4 genius. Also some of those teams would have made the playoff in the past if it was 12 like this year .
Hey Joel, not sure if you’ll see this, but I just wanted to send some encouraging words your way. As a fellow professional (different industry), I have to give you major props. Your depth of knowledge, smooth delivery, and ability to cover such a wide range of topics with ease is truly impressive. Keep up the amazing work-I’m a big fan of your show!
Thank you to the committee for doing the right thing. The fact that Alabama was still seriously being considered for a spot was absurd. They 100% got the teams correct, I agree the format is horrible but I can't wait to see how this plays out!
@@chrisjames6063No one is afraid of a Bama that puts up 3 points against bad teams in late Novemeber. But I'm sure that helps you sleep at night so I'll let you cook.
The problem with the strength of schedule argument for Alabama is that you didn't lose to the "tough schedule". Two out of the three losses were to the lesser teams on your schedule. If Alabama's losses were to Tennessee, Ole Miss and perhaps LSU, then you could cry about a tough schedule compared to others. And Alabama was ranked behind SMU leading into this weekend. You can't punish SMU for earning their way to an extra game when you (the committee) already believed they should be ranked higher than Alabama before the game was played.
Your point is understandable. Many think SMU never should have been ranked as high as they are. The ACC should have been a play-in game. The committee showed you how much they valued the ACC champion. Moved them up a whole one spot, still behind the 3 loss SEC teams and Miami, arguably the best in the ACC. Then said SMU got the nod cause they “played good”.
I love that Joel is so positive about the 12 team playoff. I like it too. It seems like everywhere you go, media and podcasters or whoever are constantly complaining and bitching about it
I see nothing wrong with the format. It’s fun to see teams like ASU and Boise have a legit chance to win a title. If the SEC and Big Ten are so good, they’ll be able to overcome the difficult path. Dan Lanning literally said yesterday that he welcomes the challenge. Winners don’t cry, they win. Ohio State lost to a mediocre Michigan team, and it cost them- as it should. Tennessee lost to a bad Arkansas team - and it cost them. They still have as equal of a chance as anyone in the field to win a championship.
@@stevescheidjr4632 Really shouldn't matter in the long-run, right? If the Ohio States and Penn States, Etc. are the powerhouses that they are, they will have no problem winning............verdad?
They’ll need to expand to 14 to give the best 2 conference champs a bye or 16 teams without a bye. You can’t give byes to teams who don’t win their conference, otherwise why have conference championship.
@ I agree with 8, but they won’t cut back on teams now due to money. 14 at least, you’ll get big ten and sec champ to get the bye more years than most. If you go 16, no byes and can do seeding like NFL does with divison/wildcard
Oregon got cheated placed by far in the hardest bracket look how easy it is for Georgia to get to the finals all the best teams are in the upper bracket except Georgia!
First time I’ve ever seen Joel contradict himself. He is now advocating that the losers of the conference championship games be punished, even though last week he said the loser shouldn’t be punished for making it to an extra game.
This is the honest version of Klatt that we need. Less of this Fox heavy narrative and SEC bashing every episode. Your insight is appreciated when it’s not directed against Foxs competitors every episode. We need intellectual honesty and fair voices of reason. Please keep this up.
They should just let the 4 champions pick where they want to be placed on the bracket. The top ranked picks first, so Oregon would probably choose to play the winner of SMU/Penn State, then let Georgia pick, then Boise, then ASU.
Remember last year when Alabama undeservingly took FSU's spot?? F Alabama...they didn't deserve it last year and they don't deserve it this year. Very happy to see them out.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 91 | คู่เอก "คมอาวุธ vs อเล็กเซย์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/V0RkEfYFsgM/mqdefault.jpg)
Did the Committee get it right?
nope
Yeah as much as they could’ve, but the first round byes for conference champions needs to go. There is no world where Boise State and Arizona State should be in better positions than Ohio State, Penn State, Texas etc.
OSU will be favored by more in their second round matchup than in their first round matchup LOL that should never happen
well done committee. PSU got the easy route. Refereeing at the Big ten was horrendous. Never seen anything like that... all four quarters! At least the entire world will be watching Oregon vs Ohio State or Texas. I am smelling BBQed Duck! Ohio State vs Penn state in the final. Easy street for the Nittany Lions. SMU and Boise State. Thanks committee. We Are!
Yes
It depends on how you look at it. Did they get the 12 best teams? No.
Did they get the 12 teams that seem to deserve it based on their "rules"? Probably
Did they get the most exciting teams and match ups?
NOT EVEN CLOSE
I think a problem was Alabama wasn’t dropped more for that Oklahoma loss. They shouldn’t have been ranked that high to begin with.
Bama also lost to Vandy, ole miss had a better case as a 3 loss team.
I agree and I’m a Bama fan. My main gripe with the playoffs is how the automatic bids work. I personally just don’t like #16 and #17 going into conference champion week got to be in I just personally would’ve rather seen teams like SC or Ole Miss get in. Bama I think is a case they could get in but losing 2 easy games should definitely penalize you.
@@mericcollins8481 they should just seed the best 12, no one believes noise and asu are the number 3 and 4 teams in the country.
Ole miss lost to Kentucky. The 2nd worst team in the SEC.
Yep. They were pandering to the Bama / SEC with that ranking. Bama should have fallen WAY down when they got dominated by bad OK.
I’m old enough to remember last week when Joel Klatt ranked Texas, Penn State, and Notre Dame 2, 3, and 4, respectively, despite them all having the same number of quality wins as they do this week. Fascinating. And don’t remind him that he agreed with the committee’s rankings last week, and told us all year that conference championship losers shouldn’t and wouldn’t be punished for losing a game that other teams didn’t have to play.
"the committee manipulated..."
Georgia will spank them frauds again
They weren’t
@ His point about Oregon having an unfairly difficult path given that they should have the easiest is sound, and he gave the answer to that problem at the beginning: redo the format. It’s not a committee/rankings issue. If you gave the top 4 ranked teams byes and guaranteed a playoff spot (but no guaranteed seeding/bye) to the 5 highest ranked conference champs, the playoff would look like this:
1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3. Texas
4. Penn State
5. Notre Dame vs 12. Clemson
6. Ohio State vs 11. Arizona State
7. Tennessee vs 10. SMU
8. Indiana vs 9. Boise State
That’s how it should look, and that would be fair. Now, he did make a good point about lower tier conferences having a pointless conference championship (SMU, Boise, and ASU would’ve been in regardless with no bye, so why play it in this hypothetical format?) but that’s for the conferences themselves to decide and fix. I will say though, while the ACC championship was pointless for SMU individually, for the ACC as a whole it was great because it gave them an opportunity for two teams in the playoff instead of 1. So it’s not as bad as Klatt makes it out to be.
SMU making it in makes no sense. Inferior conference, didn’t play any of the good teams in their conference and the ranked teams they played against they lost to. That is a blatant fraudulent team
Alabama never should have been ranked at 11 to begin with after the horrendous loss to OU. If the committee just got their rankings right then this wouldn't even be an issue
Just like when they moved up Bama 3 spots for demolishing Mercer.
Look at their wins. You might as well say Ole Miss and South Carolina shouldn’t have been where they were. Because Alabama has a better resume than both teams.
Agree
@@Ace-mw9pm bama has an awful resume, wym😂😂😂
Losing to Vandy and getting stomped on by a mediocre Oklahoma team
12:05 I keep hearing people saying that Alabama should just schedule cupcake nonconference games because of this. What they fail to realize is that Alabama getting left out had NOTHING to do with their nonconference schedule. Alabama didn’t get punished for losing a tough game to Ohio State or Oregon, they got punished for losing to two 6-loss teams in their own conference. Scheduling cupcakes wouldn’t have changed the fact that the tide lost to Vandy and got embarrassed by Oklahoma.
Thank you! Joel normally has good take but he saved his worst takes of the year for this video apparently
Bama already has a cupcake non conference schedule.
Sigh. Teams will focus on OOC because that's the only part of the schedule they can control. So many people are missing this. They can't adjust their conference schedule because it is given to them. The only way to make the schedule easier is OOC. No more UGA vs. Clemson. No reason to play the game. Loss hurts more than the win helps. People focus on Bama, but it's more than them. Talk about OOC because that's the only part schools control.
True very true but Bama is the SEC team I root for so Roll Tide
Wrong assessment…Alabama lost three games.
If they would lost only 2 games they would be in.
Strength of schedule only mattered this year according to how many games you lost. Everybody knows Boise and Arizona State don’t deserve a 1st round bye.
If Indiana would have lost more than one game they would be out cause of the strength of their schedule.
This was barely watchable, and I usually love your show. I’ve been an SEC football homer my entire life, but Bama did not deserve a seed after getting their skull crushed by Vandy and OU. You can have the opinion that Bama is better than SMU, but SMU competed to a high degree against the opponents which they were presented and Bama did not. You can make a much more reasonable case for Ole Miss or SC. Bama favoritism in the media is out of control.
Thank you brother! Well said, this was very hard to listen to.
Same boat, here, I had to turn it off and find this comment to like. So much of this take is BS. Teams weren't dropped as far for losing the conf championships because they lost close to highly ranked teams, so the metrics he quotes are out of context. Yes, the teams don't determine tiebreakers, they're set out at the beginning of the season... And yes hindsight shows some teams ended up with easier schedules, but tell that to the teams who thought Indiana would be a pushover... No one knows how a team will be until you play the games! Wins and Losses matter and who you lose to matters.
Bama beat sc and ole Miss beat sc so sc can't be in and I'm from Carolina and ole Miss lost at home to Kentucky and Florida which isn't any better than losing to Vandy and Oklahoma but at least you can make the argument but you can't put a team in over 2 teams they lost too they literally proved on the field who was better.
People focusing on Bama’s losses rather than their wins is why there happens to be a Bama argument to begin with. Bama had every chance to be in and it makes people so angry. They were properly ranked and their losses caught up to them. Just keep hating. It’s only making things funnier.
Comepeted too a high degree? They lost both games against the only ranked teams they played ? Bama beat 3 top 25 teams . Smu plays in a highschool conference
14:13 Penn state and Texas losing in the CCG is not an equal loss to Bama losing to vandy/Ok or the Ole Miss loss to FL.
Notre dame losing to NIU is, so is Clemson getting absolutely throttled by Georgia and Louisville. Stop
Don't forget the ole Miss loss to LSU or Kentucky
@@BartCathey-g2c the one bad loss from notre dame does not equate to 2 HORRIBLE losses by bama and one of them by 3 touchdowns. Enough with the niu thing it’s old, notre dame has played 10 games since and average margin of victory in the 30s
@@BartCathey-g2cit was bad loss but it was at the beginning of the season. You aren’t the same team from the beginning of the season and at the end. That was it and they blew everyone out. Alabama lost 3 teams time and two of those are bad. I can live with two losses and one of those being a bad loss, but not twice in year.
What would Indiana's, SMU's, Clemson's and ASU's record have been if they played Oklahoma's and/or Vandy's schedule ??? Sooners and Dores may not have been as bad as their record if they'd been in the other conferences. Think about it.
Alabama being left out certainly does not hurt the “integrity of the playoff.” Ignoring bad losses to Vanderbilt and Oklahoma is what would have hurt the integrity of the playoff.
If Tennessee lost to vandy and OU they’d be out of the playoff. Simple Bama had 2 BAD losses.
Yes what a ridiculous statement. Doubt he even fully believed it. My guess is that FOX execs (who is in a financial relationship with one of the 2 super conferences) told him to say that.
Yeah they would have 4 loses genius
But who did SMU beat?
@@smokeandvigor almost all of the teams that they played including a 9-3, an 8-4 and a 7-5 team. not good enough for you?
Crazy to hear Alabama’s athletic director pushing for easy non conference schedules when they’re playing Mercer in week 10
Their losses we ALL conference. Take care of business Bama and don’t get BLOWN OUT at the end of the year.
But their out of conference schedule was easy. Their best team by a mile that they played was a 5-7 Wisconsin. And that's not even considering the fact they're playing a High School team in late November. How much easier of a nonconference schedule can they possibly want.
😂😂
@@moistoxtapusslet’s look at Notre Dame’s schedule and just copy and paste.
Alabama has played a marquee OOC team every year for 20 years. Bama lost 2 players in the Wiscy game that if they had played Wake Forest they probably don't lose those guys. NO WAY would I play Ohio St and Notre Dame that are on future schedules and get beat up and then have to play the SEC schedule when I don't have to. SMU and Indiana proved you just need to win and not worry about your schedule. If I'm Bama I schedule 4 FCS teams in OOC since it doesn't matter.
Joel this 20 min rant about the teams that got in is just outrageous. I literally cannot think of what the committee got wrong. Maybe they should have put Clemson at 11 and Smu at 12 but those teams cannot be punished for losing a conference championship. Even if smu lost by 42 I would put them over Alabama to protect championships from boycotting
Exactly. The problem is the automatic bye and the committee didn’t make that rule
@@williammorris2409bingo. I usually agree with Joel and find him to be pretty sharp and thoughtful, but he’s way off base here.
Minus will put in isu also then
@@johnvuu4679Iowa State was already outside of the top 12 and had to win to have a shot. That’s different than already being in and getting booted
@@williammorris2409conference champions are playing an extra game to be conference champions. Christ, how dumb are people.
I feel like there is a misunderstanding of the committee's process. Their job is to rank the top 12 teams, which they did as:
1. Oregon
2. Georgia
3. Texas
4. Penn State
5. Notre Dame
6. Ohio State
7. Tennessee
8. Indiana
9. Boise State
10. SMU
11. Alabama
12. Arizona State
These teams are the slotted into the bracket based on the requirements set by the bracket format. Alabama was left out solely because Clemson won the ACC, which gave them an automatic bid despite being ranked outside of the top 12, and Arizona State won the Big 12 which gave them an automatic bid despite being ranked lower than Alabama.
I would argue that these ranking are reasonable in isolation, and most fans wouldn't be upset about them. The issue comes from how the bracket is filled based on these top teams - we end up with scenarios like the one we are in now entirely because of the automatic bids for conference champions and the automatic byes for conference champions. If we did not have these auto-bids and auto-byes, the bracket would look as follows:
Round 1:
5 Notre Dame vs. 12 Arizona State
6 Ohio State vs. 11 Alabama
7 Tennesee vs. 10 SMU
8 Indiana vs. 9 Boise State
Round 2:
1. Oregon vs [8 Indiana or 9 Boise State]
2. Georgia vs [7 Tennesee or 10 SMU]
3. Texas vs [6 Ohio State or 11 Alabama]
4. Penn State vs [5 Notre Dame or 12 Arizona State]
And so on...
In my opinion this bracket scenario with no automatic bids based only on the top 1-12 rankings is well-balanced. This clearly shows that the issue with the current playoff is the format, and not the way that the committee chose to rank the teams. The committee's job is not to slot teams into the bracket based on the restrictions that the bracket imposes, but rather to simply rank the top teams from 1 to 12, which they did. The implication that the committee went out of their way to rig the system in favor of a certain team (Bama vs. SMU) is ridiculous because they clearly state in their rankings that they believe that both teams are top 12 teams. ( collegefootballplayoff.com/rankings.aspx )
Great breakdown. The parameters of the bracket are distorted by the Conference Championships
But of course we should continue with the same way they chose teams from last year QB hurt and out team is out too so that means Georgia is out of the playoffs OOPS would that be bad for the sec......but it was ok for FSU and the ACC,,,,
@@richardwestern9546 I totally see your frustration here, I do think it's worth adding though that the committee last year did put FSU as the 5th team in the nation, so they only dropped one position (from what I remember) due to that injury. With that precedent set, though, I could see why people believe that Georgia shouldn't be ranked 2nd right now seeing as their quarterback is hurt. I don't believe that they should be ranked low enough that it would knock them out of the playoff though, since not even FSU was knocked out of the top 5 last year.
Also worth noting that even if the committee ranked Georgia outside of the top 12, they would still have received an automatic bid into the playoff with the current (broken - in my opinion) format.
@@Ccal4142Gaming But the Committiee can do what ever they want and kick whoever they want out and put whoever they want in...SMU is very lucky. that Bama was not able to buy there way in.
Are we gonna ignore the fact that a major reason why conference runner ups only dropped 1 spot is because all of them came down to the last possession?
Exactly. And the reason no one is arguing for Iowa State is because they got their doors blown off. You can't devalue the conference title game. Otherwise teams will skip them altogether for getting penalized in a one possession loss.
You can NOT be speaking of SMU vs Clemson.
He will conveniently ignore that fact! He’s just mad that his precious Buckeyes didn’t jump Texas or Penn State
There was zero zebras involved with that farce too
So did miami and syracuse and they dropped them 11 spots. Weak
Just because Bama is not in the playoffs doesn’t means this new playoff bracket is broken 🤷🏾♂️
Facts😂
The playoff bracket is very clearly broken.
Almost no one is saying that's why the format is broken
Amen to that
Maybe because the #1 Seed Oregon has to play potentially the top 3 highest ranked teams to win the CFP after their bye even though they are the BIG TEN champions/#1 overall ranked team. They get the toughest path out of all of the conference champions. broken system.
YES... given the formula. Seeding needs to be adjusted next year. Cry me a river Alabama all you had to do was show up at Oklahoma!
absolutely Bama 0-2 against .500 teams in the SEC vs 6-0 for SMU against .500 teams in the ACC. That stat will serve them well when they face those .500 teams in the Bracket.
Your right though Bama only has Bama to blame. bad bad coaching in 2 games cost them. But do not see them going anywhere, so the hate will continue.
@@fredgilley5378I can’t stand Bama but can’t ignore the quality wins they have that teams like SMU, Indiana, and Penn state do not. Yes those teams all have better records, but lost to the only real competition they faced. I am completely fine with Bama being out, but Strength of Schedule needs to become a factor going foward. UGA has played 6 games against the top 15 going 4-2. Why would they play a schedule that hard again if it isn’t?
Is there Bama fans crying that I don’t see somewhere
Think about the OP comment. As a 2 loss team Bama would have been in. What does that tell you….
Strength of schedule only mattered this year if u lost. If you had a weak schedule and lost 2 games you were supposed to be out.
The problem was the ACC was so bad this year. ACC should have only had one team get in and it should have been SMU.
Clemson had three losses. Don’t care who those losses were against. That means you can’t beat those teams in the playoffs.
South Carolina!
Wow you opened my eyes, everyone’s hate for Bama is overshadowing the biggest injustice here.. Oregon.. I feel very bad for them.
The problem is that 4 or 5 SEC teams didn't get in. If Alabama or another SEC team had gotten in, the story would be how great this new playoff is and we should have gone to it years ago.
Joel is heavily weighted best wins and want to completely discount worst loss(es). Alabama had TWO bad losses. SMU, PSU, and Indiana had no bad losses. Those teams played more consistently throughout the season. I do agree with him on reseeding after first round.
Are you going to play any .500 or sub .500 teams in the playoffs? No! So it shouldn't matter. You either can win big games or you can't. Penn State would fair much better if there was a NIT
Yep. And Nick Saban is NOT there to save Alabama with excellent coaching adjustments. Bama is no longer a juggernaut.
This playoffs will be great for the College Game in general. There will likely be adjustments but quite frankly, if you are the 14th or 16th ranked team, you don’t probably need to be in the playoffs anyway.
We only had FOUR teams just last year.
SMU, PSU, and Indiana didn’t have any “bad loses” because they DIDNT PLAY ANY DIFFICULT TEAMS! Put those teams in SEC and they’d be skulldrug every weekend. Let Alabama play their middle school opponents and they’ll be 12-0.
@@DavidC-pg6niyour response is irrelevant Alabama finished ranked 11 an a loss compared to 6 games were you barely scraped a win with 1 point it’s the issue here Mr sir
@@kimberlyashcraft7841I think those teams beat Oklahoma and Vandy. Cope harder
If #2 Texas loses to #5 Georgia, why would they fall 6 spots? Or if #3 Penn State loses to #1 Oregon. That was never going to happen. It feels like Joel is complaining about something that's not an issue. Who you play when you lose matters - not just that you were in the top 10 and you lost. Losing to Georgia Tech is a lot worse than losing to Georgia.
That's all he does
If you just blindly look at previous rankings then yes neither of those teams should be dropped but if you flip the perspective you realize that Ohio State is behind Penn state after beating them with a better resume and same amount of loses. Resumes have to be continuously reevaluated.
His point is putting weak teams in is bad for playoffs
@@Likeaboss236OSU and PSU have the same number of losses but Penn States losses were to the at the time number 4 team in the country by one possession then to the undefeated number 1 team by 1 possession. Ohio State lost to Michigan… so they have the same number of losses, but those losses are not equal 😂
@@mainman8005 Lol I like how you said to the “number four team in the country” instead of saying they lost to the team they really ranked higher than. They both have loses to Oregon but Ohio Sate played them even closer and they were playing AT Oregon not a neutral field. They’re the better team dude.
You’re talking about dropping Texas and PSU for losing CCGs as much as teams losing to OU, UF, and UM who were barely .500? Make it make sense Joel. Those teams sat home while others played an extra tip 5 team.
OSU has two wins against playoff teams which should count for something.
@jirikurto3859 agreed especially since OSU beat PSU head to head.
No dropping Texas for having no top 25 wins and weakest strength of schedule in the SEC!! Go Dawgs
@@kshay1882Tennnessee played 7 of the same teams as Texas and their only top 25 win is against the worst Bama team in 15 years. Ole Miss played 6 of the same teams as Texas and still choked on 3-unranked teams. Let’s not pretend like Texas had the weakest schedule when several teams had comparable if not nearly the same schedule.
@@kylewalker641 Tennessee is a nine seed though, so why is Texas the 5th seed? Ole Miss isn't even in the playoffs so I have no idea how they are relevant if your purpose is to justify Texas' seeding.
Tired of the “this conference is better than that conference”” blah blah. People hated on the Pac12 as the trash conference and now two of those teams are in the top 4 bracket. The other two conferences nearly had the noob teams to their conference win out as well with SMU and Texas. It’s all pandering. ANYONE can beat anyone else! Georgia, Alabama, OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Etc, are all flawed teams and lose to other sub teams. Happened and will continue to happen. NIL and portal has changed everything.
And don't forget Oregon coming in and winning the big10 which if you ask anyone other than an sec fan is considered a strong conference 😆 it hilarious to me how much joel flip flopped his position in the last 2 weeks, all season it was "you can't punish a team for playing in their conference championship" to last week and this week wanting to punish SMU for it...mind you while simultaneously not wanting to punish any other conference losers like penn state or Texas. Like let's look at Texas SOS and best wins and compare them to SMU and Bama, if we are punishing conference champion losers then you have to punish them all you can't just pick and choose which one you wanna punish because you think they are from a weaker conference. Not to mention the "stronger conference" argument is irrelevant for Bama they didn't have 3 losses to top teams like GA, Texas and Tennessee, they lost to freaking Vandy and Oklahoma, get over it they didn't deserve to go to are playoffs this year plain and simple. If Ohio state had lost to 2 unranked instead of just one and gotten left out nobody would be making the same arguments for them besides having the most top wins next to Oregon. The only valid things mention in this whole video is based on the overall bracket format in that the top ranked Oregon did not actually get the easiest path forward and so they are essentially being punished for winning out
The difference is... the B1G is known for being run by Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. And Oregon ran through the B1G powers in route to a B1G championship. Oregon earned the praise they are getting.
The literal dichotomy of that is Texas's schedule. Who is the SEC known for? How many of those teams did Texas play? Texas had the easiest conference schedule in the SEC. For those who don't agree, simply name one, just one team that you think had an easier path in-conference.
SMU had another easy path. They only had to take on a down FSU. The ACC is known to be a two team conference. It used to be Clemson and FSU (because CU, FSU, & Miami were never all good at the same time). This year, it was Clemson and Miami who were favored to win the conference. Then, they lost to a Clemson team that just lost to South Carolina and got curb stomped by Georgia.
Who are the heavy hitters in the Big12? Personally, I don't know. I think it's widely accepted that the Big12 is currently the bottom of the power conferences (mainly because they no longer have any premier teams). Just like the G5, they only got 1 in, too. Coincidence?
@mike.armstrong92 has anyone been arguing for Bama???
@tremoore9831 waaay too many people are lol it's breaking my brain. They should have never jumped 3 spots for playing mercer but benefited from that hectic week, then only drop 4 when they get dog walked by a mediocre oklahoma the next week. The problem is they should have been dropped waaay lower after that oklahoma loss
The committee actually did a good job. Better than those atrocious rankings you put out on Saturday night. What is with your insistence on rewarding teams like notre dame and Ohio state for sitting on the couch this weekend? It’s borderline ridiculous. Calling the committee “inconsistent” for understanding that conference championship games shouldn’t be punishing teams makes zero sense because during the regular season everyone is playing every weekend. That was clearly not the case this weekend. There’s no inconsistency because the situations are clearly different. Period.
The root of the seeding problem is not conference championship games, it's that the SEC and ACC only play 8 conference games. Bama had a paper soft non-conference schedule and lost to 3 SEC opponents, including 2 bad ones. So it's on the SEC and the SEC alone that they only got 3 teams in. Schedule 9 or 10 conference games and stop playing division 2 teams in November.
I'd like to see the P4 have divisions. Conferences are too big. I want to see teams playing every team in their division every year.
I just don’t get this argument. The big10 and big12 also play 3 terrible teams out of conference most of the time. The ACC and SEC have 8 teams combined that are less than .500 while the other 2 conferences have 7-8 each. You could really argue that the big10 and big12 playing 9 conference games actually makes their schedule weaker. I’m not a bama fan but they played Wisconsin as one of their out of conference games and only played 1 of the 3 SEC teams that finished below .500. Georgia played Clemson week 1 and Georgia tech. Texas played Michigan.
No one wants to see 9 conference games when 5 of them are against sub .500 teams. I think it needs to be 8 conference games + 3 p4 games + 1 FCS game. Thats the only way to see how these conferences stack up to each other.
What would really fix this is every conference plays 8 game conference. 3 non-conference games against similar placed teams from the other p4 conference (using last year's conference finish) and 1 cupcake. This would be a great way to measure each conference against each other for the end of year strength of schedule debates.
Alabama played at Wisconsin in non conference remind us who Ohio state nd Indiana play in non conference
@ 100% on board for that. Let’s also do this: if your cumulative record in the BCS/CFP era is below .500 you get dropped out of the p4. There’s no reason teams that are horrible year after year who’s only goal as a program is to become bowl eligible should be in the p4.
Joel had it right a few weeks ago when he said that teams should not be punished for getting to the conference championship game. Then, last week, he suddenly changed his mind and thought that Penn State and SMU would be punished. He shouldn't have changed his mind for the (great) reasons he gave a few weeks ago why a championship game shouldn't hurt a team. He was wrong. The committee got it right. (Although, as a Buckeyes fan, it would have been better for us if he were right).
both teams don’t belong. but they’re in anyway
Smu and Clemson don’t belong, let’s be real. Both teams are atrocious
@GoatedAtNFS why? What's your take. Let's hear how smart you are unless you're a troll. Especially being penn state had a chance to beat the #1 Team and showed out.
He meant it when it was Miami or Ohio State in those games. When it became Penn St and SMU his philosophy no longer produced the outcome he wanted.
@@GoatedAtNFSPenn state 100% belongs lmao
“Bama’s better than SMU”. Really? Which Bama? Certainly not the one that couldn’t find the end zone in Norman in November. Certainly not the Bama that lost three regular season games including a slopfest at Vanderbilt. Klatt is a favorite of mine, but I loathe the certainty in which talking heads offer speculative assessments about notoriously inconsistent teams. Alabama lost a 1/4 of its regular season games, ffs. Better than SMU? With which Milroe?
Were you planning on looking at their upsides or just theyre downsides to fit your narritive. Listen buddy its okay to just say you hate bama and move on.
Bama. OLE MISS AND SOUTH CAROLINA COULD BEAT 10 OUT OF THE 12 TEAMS PICKED VERY EASY.
The Bama that has 3 top 25 wins. Now do SMU.
@@nicmckeever8551 Stating that Alabama has been inconsistent this season is incontrovertible fact. It is also inclusive of both the good and the bad.
The one that showed up at Norman would still beat smu
I agree with the sentiment that teams not being ranked by "best" in the at-large spots ends up punishing Oregon.
But using Texas as the example is really odd. If you swap them and Ohio State in seeding, Oregons path isnt any easier. Texas would be favored over Ohio State on a neutral field right now.
Penn State, sure. But Texas? No, not really.
I dont understand the argument of losing a extra played game in the confrence championship. Compared to losing a regular season game. It is a extra game that could knock you out of the playoffs if you lose compared to sitting at home. If they did that next season no team will want to play a confrence championship game.
In fact the only time a extra game would be needed is if two teams have the same record and didnt play each other. Which those teams would want to be co-confrence champions to not lose a playoff spot.
Funny how getting rid of confrence championship games can make it worse for college football.
I love the fact that precedent that’s been established was upheld and not flipped completely to get Bama in
I like that it actually punishes the hoarding of conferences. It's the College Football Playoffs, not the SEC Playoffs.
Anyone can join the SEC if they’d like….
@@kimberlyashcraft7841 You could say the same about Alabama or Ole Miss joining the Big 12 if they really wanted to and cared so much about making the playoffs, since it's supposedly so easy.
@@MrDrewPhillipole Miss and bama would have won the big 12 and the acc with one eye closed
@@isaacvandyke7569 So you're admitting that the hoarding of conferences is an issue
@@MrDrewPhillip absolutely not, it provides way better regular season games
Bama playing themselves out of a playoff spot is breaking so many people’s brains
The question has always been have some of the teams ahead of them played their ways in? Smu surely didn't... played nobody all year and a lose helped them😂😂
The fact that people think that the sec's ranking really means anything? when 3 and 4 loss teams get ranked ahead of 1 and 2 loss teams, sec bias and $$$$$ Bama could play 10 sec ranked teams and it wont matter anymore if they loose to 3 or 4 of them lol lol lol lol lol. the rest of the ncaaf is awake now because if NIL and the fact that now everyone can pay there players not just Bama.
@richardwestern9546 😂 sounds like the guy mad cause he lost his bet after thinking #1 in the sec and #1 in the mountain west is equal
@richardwestern9546 still makes no sense lol what you are talking about is subjective... I'm literally talking about numbers and things that can be quantified. It's well known that the acc doesn't compare to the sec. Case in point Clemson. The same team that beats your pick (smu) is the same team that lost 2 out of 3 games to the sec. You can like that the sec didn't get the last spot that's fine but you in the same breath can't say that the team that was picked was the best option. Maybe the least controversial
@@kenfelder6478 Well if you think in controversial times let's put Bama in and Georgia out the same way they left the undefeated FSU out last year since there QB is hurt lol lol lol
“The dawn of the golden age of college football.” That’s a laugh. CFB is cooked.
The SMU vs Bama debate is for casuals. The real story is how Oregon ( and to a lesser extent Georgia) got tougher draws thsn the teams they beat in the conference title games
Georgia has the easiest path to the championship. I’ll give you Oregon though.
Cry cry cry. Type type type
. . . and, of course, you’re not a casual.
@@anthonycollier3183I would disagree Texas had the easiest path to the championship with their schedule, only 2 games against top 25 in a stacked SEC conference doesn’t sound like a good SOS to me
It needs to be like the nfl highest seed plays the lowest available seed so if clemson beat texas they would play oregon not asu.
Teams in conference championships absolutely should have an “artificial floor”. There’s no way a team sitting on the couch should jump teams that earned a 13th game. And your comments on the Penn st tie breaker directly contradicts what was said about strength of schedule. Like you said “the record of teams they play is nothing they can control”
Alabama has 3 losses, including two against 6-6 teams. I don't wanna hear any crying about them not making the playoffs.
And yes, SMU deserves to be in ahead of them, no debate.
Yes, "we only had one loss against winning teams" means "we had two losses against teams who weren't winning teams". There's no way to move the toothpaste around the "3 losses, 2 bad losses" tube that creates more toothpaste.
Yeah Joel is amazingly wrong on that take.
I think you can say SMU deserved the spot while also saying that Alabama is the better team. I wanted SMU in, but also think that Alabama is one of the 12 best teams in the country. I think that was Joel’s point, that when you put teams in that deserve to be in (which I agree with) you won’t necessarily have the 12 best teams in the playoff.
But Smu is rank higher than Clemson?
@@Ty-rq3ye who cares if at your ceiling you are one of the 12 best when quite a few times you play well below your ceiling? Most deserving is more honorable and fair than "best." If best was the way would we even demand that teams win their games or we just look at their potential/roster??? Effort and execution count in addition to talent/potential.
If they didn't play the conference championship games at all Oregon would still be playing the winner of Ohio State vs Tennessee. The only difference is ASU would be the 12th seed, bama would be the 11th, Boise would be the 4th, and SMU would be the 3rd. Texas and Penn State were already ranked ahead of ND, Ohio State, and Tennessee and still was Georgia. So do you really think barely losing that extra 13th game against some of the best teams in the country warrants falling below teams you were already ranked ahead of? If you have a problem with the way teams were seeded it isn't because of the conference championship games but because of the way the committee ranked the teams before the conference championship games. And I agree that committee messed some things up like ND being ranked so high despite the worst loss of any playoff team and a weak schedule. ND had no reason to be ranked higher than SMU or Indiana and neither did Texas for that matter. The big 12 teams being so far down the rankings while teams like Miami are way up there like BYU didn't literally beat SMU on the road. The committee got a lot of things wrong but not pushing teams for close losses in a 13th game that they have to play isn't one of them
You can tell who’s not football fans. Alabama played Georgia, Vandy, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri & LSU in a row. But people bring up the fact that they played Mercer right after that gauntlet. Vandy was no slouch I think in another conference they would be in the top 3. I hope SEC teams start avoiding one another like the other conferences. Indiana in no way shape or form should be in! They played 1 good team and got beat by 30
The CFP committee totally got it right We use the same type of approach in college basketball Sometimes the underdog wins a conference championship tourney
I can't believe Joel is arguing against SMU but has been arguing for Colorado all freaking season. Makes no sense.
When was Joel arguing for Colorado as an at-large playoff contender? Just making stuff up
He hates the ACC. SMU is basically Indiana with a conference championship game loss
Smu doesn’t play on Fox and Colorado does.
That’s in your head bud. No mention of Colorado as a playoff team since they lost to kansas.
That's because he's biased he played for Colorado. They're so terrible they shouldn't even be ranked.
Alabama shouldn't have even been considered. This playoff format is infinitely better than what we've ever had as college football fans. Nobody can argue that the best team nationally was left out, and whomever wins is the undisputed champ. That's the WHOLE point.
Yep. 💯
😂 if you know what 4 teams will be left that's when we know it's bad😂
13-0 Oregon the team that had the best regular season in the sport is rewarded by the toughest path to win a championship
I disagree. I’m from Oregon and am a fan of
its not the toughest path. You are just looking at name brands.
Toughest path is whoever has to play oregon
Perhaps the committee devalued Ohio State because of their loss to unranked Michigan? Also, strange that a Dawg is acting as an attorney for Big Orange, but why is OSU seeded above Tennessee? Tennessee's losses were on the road at Arkansas and Georgia. OSU lost to an unranked team at home. Ditto Notre Dame who lost at home to an unranked G5 team. Why are they seeded above either OSU or Tennessee?
Losing to 5-6 Arkansas is worse than losing to 7-5 Michigan. Michigan still has some DNA from that national championship team remaining.
@@omieg89 The difference is between losing at home or losing on the road.
Texas schedule was so easy that Ole miss, Alabama and Tennessee all lost to the “easy” teams Texas played
Forgot I even add OSU to this list lol
Texas should try beating Georgia some time. Its a good feeling. They should try winning vs a ranked opponent at all actually.
@@nicmckeever8551Texas has beat more bowl eligible teams than any other team in the country.
@@nicmckeever8551as well as 5 teams that were ranked at the time of playing
@@nicmckeever8551Alabama might want to beat Vandy and a terrible OU team before trying to talk scheduling smack.
This is nonsense. Just a few weeks ago Mr. Klatt was talking about how the conference championship games should not penalize teams for losing since it’s an extra game. Alabama was neither the most deserving nor best last year. FSU was the most deserving, Georgia was the best of those three.
"Most deserving" is how we ended up handing Georgia a free national championship when they absolutely stomped TCU.
Regarding punishing people for playing in their conf championship games. I agree they shouldnt be punished, but at the same time winning your conf game is a big boon (in this format at least, boise st and az state should NOT have a bye) so its hard to have conf champ games be pure upside with no downside.
I was thinking that the whole time. It's a complete departure from what he's been saying previously.
You mean the Alabama team that played Michigan the closest and beat Georgia in the SEC Championship?
Don’t lose to .500 teams in the last two weeks of the season.
The obvious rebuttal to Joel’s “teams should be punished for losing conference championship games” is “teams shouldn’t be rewarded for failing to qualify for conference championship games because they lost games they shouldn’t”. For me it’s as simple as that. Ohio State finished fourth in the big ten and should be ranked higher than 8th overall? Alabama finished fourth in the SEC with three losses and should be in over SMU who finished second in a “power conference”? If you want the regular season to matter you shouldn’t be rewarding teams that finish that low in their own conference. I think the committee got it right
Ohio State is the third best team in the Big 10 on record but after Michigan ramming it down their throat it is clear they don't have the real jam to win a Natty
@@marklittle8805Ohio State finished behind Oregon, Penn State, and Indiana in that order on record
The issue was, as he explained, Bama’s path to the SEC is extremely different than SMU’s path in the ACC. So there’s a lot of context around just making it to a conference championship. The problem is that conferences with a couple of good teams get an artificial advantage.
👍👍👍👍👍
Smu only played 2 teams with winning record in conference play. Texas only played 2 teams with winning records in conference play. Tennesse only played 2 teams with winning records in conference play. Its wild how this worked out, maybe no more none power 4 games or maybe only 1
I think after this week, the dust will settle on Alabama and SMU debate and people will start looking at the more important issue with Oregon’s “reward”.
I guess Joel decided to rant about the format the entire time instead of dedicating some of it to the actual games that were played over the weekend.
People should be ranting about this garbage format. Hopefully it will get fixed ASAP
Don't blame him. The format is ridiculous and the conference championship games were pretty meaningless
The fact that Oregon beat Penn State and got a much tougher draw is a bigger story than the game itself
Keep selection the same, but have the first round be all 12 teams playing, highest vs lowest seed, with the highest 2 remaining seeds getting a second round bye into the semi-finals
That would require him to give Georgia credit and he’d rather jump off a Cliff than give Georgia anything, so yeah I understand why he did it.
Losses matter. If you give AL so much credit for beating UGA, SC and MO you have to balance that with bad losses to VAN, OK and a decent loss to TN. No one is talking about Indiana not even playing a ranked team other than OSU, yet they are still ranked ahead of SMU and the SEC teams. If you criticize SMU's easy path to the ACC championship but ignore Indiana it's a hollow argument.
i don’t feel bad for teams that didn’t make the CFP if they didn’t make the conference championship game….
win your games and it wouldn’t be a problem.
Not all conferences are equal
Even if you don't "penalize" teams for conference championship game participation, you don't have to reward them for participation. The better answer would have been ranking Texas where they actually belonged -- outside of the top 12 and, if they won the conference championship game, seed them as required.
The committee is a joke 8 of these teams dont belong in this playoff. 4 of the teams can beat all 8. 2 can beat 10 of them. The 2 that can are not Big10, Big12, Pac, Midwest, or Acc.
I pretty much always agree with you Joel and I understand your analysis here. I would just push back that the resume for Texas actually was better than Ohio State’s and the other teams you mentioned when the season concluded. Texas had lost once, beat the team that just beat Ohio state at home, and had taken care of business convincingly throughout the year. They were ranked number 2 when the season ended and deserved to be there. Other teams with harder schedules had the opportunity to have a more impressive season/resume… but they all lost games they shouldn’t have. Texas didn’t
I don't have a tear for any conference team. The conferences dictated this 12 team playoff. Live with it.
I feel this. Every single game you have an opportunity to build your resume by winning games, or at least keeping the games as competitive as possible. Every single game is a data point. Treat the season like a de facto tournament. If you fall a quarter of your games and can't make a CCG then you're clearly not even Top 2 in your conference and at that point I wouldn't (and don't think anyone should) be dropping tears over their teams no making it. Be upset at your team for not taking care of business, don't be mad at others for winning just because you have a superiority complex and believe you should be rewarded regardless of game outcomes.
I think this playoff is perfect, it allows smaller schools an opportunity to play for the playoffs, if you’re super at being left out don’t lose and you won’t have that problem. I’m tired of seeing the same teams in the playoffs this is perfect for all schools!
Well said. The "best teams" are sure to be included and the conference champions are rewarded. I don't really care about the other slots, but it's good to include teams like SMU that you would not normally see.
What was that TCU v Ga score? Who wants that for a natty? Just so some small school gets a participation trophy?
@@SamuelCulper-h6s With a 12 team playoff, you are still going to get similar blowouts, happens every year in bowl games.
@ Not last year, where I’m subbing playoffs for bow games.
@@SamuelCulper-h6s By your logic no SEC should have been allowed to play for a national title after 95 Nebraska DEMOLISHED Florida......
As an Alabama alum who has been a fan for more than sixty years, I can tell you ANY TEAM THAT LOSES TO VANDERBILT HAS NO BUSINESS playing for a National Championship.
It pains me to say this, Being an SEC conference fan, but I love college football. I think that Oregon and Penn State are the two best teams in college football, and I think one of them will win it all. I'm super happy that Colorado isn't in it, talk about overrated, my gosh, if they play a real college football competition they'd be lucky to win 6 games.
Alabama's schedule is nobodies problem but them. If you want to be in a super conference that's their own fault.
Why don't they talk to the FCS, they have been doing it right for a long time.
Because they have a fair playoffs. The SEC wants it rigged so they get half the spots.
The NDSU Bisons would probably beat Alabama on any given Saturday.
@kyle89236 agreed. Every year the top 15 is loaded with 5-6-7 SCHEDULE EASY CUPCAKES......,ERRR, I mean SEC teams. Rigged and corrupt go hand in hand here.
The committee values bad losses. Period. You can't lose to 7-5 Michigan at home or 6-6 Vanderbilt/OU and expect to say that you're better than a team just because they don't have any Top 25 wins. It's not Texas and to a lesser degree SMU's fault that they don't have any top 25 wins if all of their games are against #2 Georgia and then #26-60. There is literally nothing else that they could do. I hate the "resumé" argument.
Playoffs are only filled with good teams. I'd rather have teams that can beat the best teams in then meh teams like PSU who can only beat Illinois
Values bad losses LMAOOOOOOOOO!!! Seriously? More reason for Alabama to do like SMU, Clemson, etc and play only high school teams. It’s IMPOSSIBLE to have bad losses when a team doesn’t play any difficult teams. Proving Alabama’s point while complaining about Alabama. Love it
It is quite literally Texas and SMU's fault they didnt play anyone, they're ADs make the schedule. The comitee was very clear SOS does not matter at all, 5/12 playoff teams dont have a ranked win.
@@GMS8201Nah,
Even in the NFL, the NFC South is often terrible. The NFC “Least” was terrible another year. Some teams got in with bad win / loss records AND got a home game Seed. SAME as this format.
Nothing is perfect. Deal with it.
@@kimberlyashcraft7841NOPE. Bama got beat DOWN by a BAD team IN CONFERENCE. Period. Don’t get blown out LATE in the year by BAD teams. Nick Saban’s GONE bama. Nobody saving you no more.
Joel, I agree with you on most things. Where we disagree is the value of conference championship games. Teams that lost should not be dropping the avg 6 spots like the regular season because it was an extra game on their schedule. If you did that then teams may try and sabotage their chance of making a conference championship for fear of dropping at the last second.
Teams like Indiana, Ohio State and Tennessee all got to sit back and rest knowing there was no way they would miss the college football playoffs.
Winners or losers of conference championship games should not shift much if really at all. I think the avg 1 spot is perfect 👌
This is such a good point. So Joel thinks teams that played in the conference championship games and lost should now be ranked below some teams that didn't have to play CCG but are still in the playoffs is ludicrous.
The format needs adjusting for sure - but if teams knew they would be punished for losing conference championship games then anyone with a shot at home game in the first round or bye based on the rankings the week before championships would opt out and not want to play and keep their ranking like everyone else not playing. Conference championships are rewards, why should they get punished for a game the other playoff teams don’t have a chance to play in (i get punishing them if they are complete blowouts but most were close) - Penn State for example everyone thought they’d be sitting home watching Ohio State and Oregon for the title, and be able to maintain their CFP home game position… but Ohio state loses to Michigan and they get the conference title game. You shouldn’t be dropping 6 positions in the rankings for playing an extra game others didn’t get to play, or it wouldn’t be worth playing. And they’d opt out of conference championships so that they don’t lose and risk dropping.
The committee made it clear early on that conference championships so contenders wouldn’t be punished for losing and that’s what they did, unfortunate for some fans of other schools but it is what it is. This format values conference championships, everyone knew the previous week rankings so all the championships really did was secure the byes. Also the teams sitting home during conference championships got a built in bye week by not playing to at least look at teams they might get to play and rest up… the losers of conference title games have to play two weeks later vs the ones who didn’t make it have 3 weeks before their first game… you shouldn’t be rewarded by jumping teams that played in close conference title games while you sat home.
Klatt wouldn’t be complaining had say Ohio State/Oregon lost in the title game and got the 5 spot, or had some other beloved school had the same. Look I get it, both Ohio State and Penn State had two loses, and Penn State’s were to Ohio State and Oregon, and Penn State never wins the big games - do I entirely believe that Penn State is better? - no I don’t, but had Ohio State won against Michigan and had Notre Dame not lost to NIU it’d be a different story and he wouldn’t be complaining. You can’t call Ohio State’s best win as Penn State and simultaneously say it was a Michigan or NIU level loss for Penn State.
I feel for the players. Some of these teams may have to play 17 games this season. That seems crazy to me. Many players will now be used up before they can even turn pro.
Oregon fan here and I hate all this crying about seeding
You won't when you get bounced second round
last time oregon won a natty? be grateful and shut ur mouth lmao
@ ok bud
Klatt being a baby because he wants Big 10 easy path.
Oregon, Georgia they’ll BOTH take all comers and handle business (or not) and they will show what they’re made of in the playoffs.
What teams are on paper don’t matter when it’s “Win or Go Home”.
@@DavidC-pg6ni the best team on Georgia's side of the bracket is Penn State. Cakewalk to the natty
I just absolutely disagree with you on this Joel. I think there should be no penalty for losing in the conference championship game. It is something no one else has to play in. And you should only have upside and no downside for losing in that game
I agree, but especially when the games are competitive one-possession games. If SMU gets blown out it's a different story
@@JBBarri get that but I still disagree. Because if that had happened In the future teams would forgo the championship game and just go straight into the playoff. I think it should be a rule that you cannot drop behind anyone who wasn’t playing in a conference championship game
To be clear, there should be an explicit rule that the committee cannot take a school that earned a spot in the CCG, and place them behind any conference partner that did not make the CCG.
@@BruceMcFarling I don’t know if I agree with that. Especially because of non conference play. But I just think you should have a rule that losing in a CCG cannot drop you
I agree with you, there also shouldn't be a penalty for winning one. My exhibit being Oregon.
The fact that Bama was behind SMU last week set the direction for this weekend. They weren't going to pass up SMU.
Bama set that period when they got mollywhopped by a BAD Oklahoma Late in the Season.
Win (or even be close) in that game and bama has a case. Got smashed late in the year and deserved to sit at home.
I dunno. If Clemons clocked em, they may have given Bama that spot.
everyone knows smu should be out and how did a arizona state make it? Neither team was ranked in the top 12. So you play worse teams and get rewarded at a higher standard than actual deserving teams
This whole thing is so subjective beyond conference champs.... I could argue for BYU over SMU, for example (BYU's better schedule and head-to-head win). I'm not saying BYU should be there. I am saying those last few spots could reasonably be given a handful of different teams.....
Can't punish teams because they don't play in the Conference you want them to play in.
They play the teams on their schedule. They won their games, they should not be punished.
The NFL and NBA have weak Divisions but the best team from make the playoffs and sometimes they win the Super Bowl or NBA Finals
I’m sorry Joel but there’s no way they will ever make the decision to nerf conference title games. They bring in too much money and that’s all the playoff is about now.
Nonsense. The top 8 teams are in there for sure. (And a few others.)
The BEST team at the end of the season will likely WIN.
No nonsense about FSU being left out. Or other close calls.
Way better than the four team (heavy ranking bias) that might have left out the best team.
12 team playoff is based around most deserving/best overall. SMU deserved more than Alabama, if Alabamas losses were to ranked power teams then maybe they can argue to be in. But they were to subpar teams and that matters.
Most deserving is how we emded up with TCU getting embarassed on national television.
@ although I agree 100% we have to accept that total wins should weigh as much as SOS. ASU deserves to have a bye for their success as much as Georgia does. They should have a seat at the table for being a conference winner. The bottom 4 slots of the playoff should exclusively be for highest ranked teams unless there is a top 12 conference loser, at that point they slide into that 12-9 slot depending on seeding. Alabama may hate the decision but they lost to bad teams, it might’ve been different tif the losses were to better teams, MAYBE but they blew it.
@@nicmckeever8551that tcu who beat Michigan
@@nicmckeever8551You're right, it should've just been 3 other SEC teams in the playoff cause they're the only ones that deserve to grace the same soil as Georgia.
@@nicmckeever8551 Amazing how yall forget that an SEC team once held the record for the worst championship loss prior to TCU.
Joel I love you but you must have amnesia, you covered the game where OSU lost to Michigan who barely became bowl eligible this year.
I understand head to head and who did you beat. But what also counts is who did you lose to and how! The argument needs to work both ways for every team being evaluated. Teams who sit at home should not be rewarded as well, if not PSU can just not play the game and still be ranked ahead of OSU. You are bright and I know you know this.
The difficult path of Oregon has far more to do with the structure of the playoffs (automatic bye for the top 4 conference champs and no re-seeding after the first round) than with ranking Texas, Penn State, and SMU too highly. For example, if you swap Ohio State and Texas, Oregon ends up potentially playing the exact same teams, just in a different order.
The fact that if u get a bye ur still playing the same amount of games and probably have a harder path than other teams that didnt play an extra conference championship game is crazy
* is crazy
* crazy work
* diabolical
Wow. Nailed it
"if u get a bye ur still playing the same amount of games"? What??
@@cubuffs4life275 yeah in the total szn brother
the conference losers play 1 more game then everyone else
Reseeding should be done after every round. Problem solved.
I say get rid of first round byes, highest two remaining seeds get second round byes into the semi-finals. Lowest remaining seeds play the second round
Here's the thing with Joel's reseeding argument. Under the current format, Oregon would still likely play Ohio State or Tennessee even if it was reseeded after the first round. Reseeding doesn't help when you're giving 2 cupcake conference chanps the 3rd and 4th seed
I hear what you're saying but I don't think that's right. Ohio state is ranked 6th in the country what is the 8th seed, I think instead of what Joel stated what needs to happen is awarding automatic buys to conference champions no other sport does this for the record LOL if you want to give the conference champions a shot in the playoffs I think we're all good with that but there's no way on Earth Arizona State or Boise State should get a free pass. They should be the lowest seeds
I thought that was strange as well!
Reseeding works if you don't give auto byes to all the conference champs. Give the auto bids to the conference champs, but give the byes to the teams actually ranked 1-4.
Joel, your argument makes sense. One quick way to eliminate the "artificial floor" is to give the byes to the final Top 4 ranked teams, regardless of conference championship. You still include 5 conference champions in the bracket. If they fall outside the ranked Top 12, they are placed at the bottom. In this example, ASU and Clemson slide in at 11 and 12, respectively.
That sets up a scenario in which #1 Oregon would play Indiana/Boise State, #2 Georgia gets Ohio State/Arizona State, #3 Texas gets Tennessee/SMU, and #4 Penn State gets Notre Dame/Clemson.
These feel like more balanced matchups that honor the regular season, conference championships, and strength of schedule.
And no, Bama did not deserve to get in. Win your games!
the only thing wrong with this bracket was giving Ohio State the home game instead of Tennessee. Ohio State gets EMBARRASSED by a lagging Michigan team? AT HOME? That shouldn't be rewarded with a home playoff game.
Joel does a good job of describing the imbalance in a concise way. Appreciate the point of views here.
stop crying about seeding. everyone that should have a shot at the national championship is in.
now it is on the team to earn their championship ring.
people in life are born with different starting points. doesn’t mean it’s right but that’s how life works.
💯
Ridiculous logic
The right teams are in but the seeding are not good at all they didn’t get the seeding right at all
It is so interesting how strength of schedule is so important but horrible losses are omitted. For those who have an issue with SMU, take it up with the alumni.
The entire resume-based argument completely disregards Penn State and Texas 11 win record over OSU and Tennessee's 10 win record. There would be no argument if they hadn't lost a second regular season game, but they did.
Joel: OSU is better than Texas.
Texas dominated UM to the point they needed to reset, and UM beats OSU. So curious the logic to justify that statement Joel.
Also, a big reason Oregon has such a tough path with the lineup to win the chip, is because no reseeding based on rank after every round. In thinking about the current seeding is the #1 will always have the hardest path; that needs to change.
Also, big fan always enjoyed it.
I do have one question for all of you... Did Penn State and Texas REALLY lose SAT?
U referring to ranking or terrible bias refees lol
Every texas penalty was correct, plus they missed 2 field goals. Yes, they lost.
THEY DIDN'T WIN..... but the won in the long run
If this podcast had been active in the 1980s Joel Klatt would’ve thought the death penalty for SMU wouldn’t have been a harsh enough punishment.
why every team who previously has never made the playoff, made the playoffs:
Penn State: can’t win big time games
Tennessee: can’t beat Georgia and Alabama in the same year
SMU: just came from G5
Boise State: G5
Indiana: they’ve been dead in the water until the portal rules changed
Arizona State: because the Pac-12 crumbles late every year
Indiana: They’ve been dead in the water until their genius hiring of Curt Cignetti and his JMU players.
It’s a TWELVE Team Playoff. There’s always teams that couldn’t make the Top 4 included in the Top 12 at the End of the Season.
No the answer is there are 12 teams this year not 4 genius. Also some of those teams would have made the playoff in the past if it was 12 like this year .
@@DavidC-pg6niAnd there’s 1 team that could make the top 4 but not the 12 😂
@@pJ-us2vlnot true. none of them would. none of them
After watching and hearing your comments, basically Alabama was the CFP canary in the coal mine.
Hey Joel, not sure if you’ll see this, but I just wanted to send some encouraging words your way. As a fellow professional (different industry), I have to give you major props. Your depth of knowledge, smooth delivery, and ability to cover such a wide range of topics with ease is truly impressive. Keep up the amazing work-I’m a big fan of your show!
Thank you to the committee for doing the right thing. The fact that Alabama was still seriously being considered for a spot was absurd. They 100% got the teams correct, I agree the format is horrible but I can't wait to see how this plays out!
Who's your team?
😂it's because they're better than most of the teams on the field😅 there losses were bad but the teams they beat would run the field too.
Not wanting bama in knowing they would run the field😂
There are literally teams in this playoff that the committee doesn’t even know if they can beat a top 25 team, let alone a playoff team.
@@chrisjames6063No one is afraid of a Bama that puts up 3 points against bad teams in late Novemeber. But I'm sure that helps you sleep at night so I'll let you cook.
The problem with the strength of schedule argument for Alabama is that you didn't lose to the "tough schedule". Two out of the three losses were to the lesser teams on your schedule. If Alabama's losses were to Tennessee, Ole Miss and perhaps LSU, then you could cry about a tough schedule compared to others. And Alabama was ranked behind SMU leading into this weekend. You can't punish SMU for earning their way to an extra game when you (the committee) already believed they should be ranked higher than Alabama before the game was played.
Your point is understandable. Many think SMU never should have been ranked as high as they are. The ACC should have been a play-in game. The committee showed you how much they valued the ACC champion. Moved them up a whole one spot, still behind the 3 loss SEC teams and Miami, arguably the best in the ACC. Then said SMU got the nod cause they “played good”.
I love that Joel is so positive about the 12 team playoff. I like it too. It seems like everywhere you go, media and podcasters or whoever are constantly complaining and bitching about it
Because it’s very flawed
You thought he was positive, today? He *said* he was excited but then complained for the next half-hour.
BECAUSE IT SUCKS!! The top 12 teams should go to playoffs, not locked spots for every conference. Basically giving participation trophies now.
Literally every fox and ESPN guy supports it because it lines their pockets. The independent podcasters are right
boise state strength of schedule was 97th give me a break.
I see nothing wrong with the format. It’s fun to see teams like ASU and Boise have a legit chance to win a title. If the SEC and Big Ten are so good, they’ll be able to overcome the difficult path. Dan Lanning literally said yesterday that he welcomes the challenge. Winners don’t cry, they win. Ohio State lost to a mediocre Michigan team, and it cost them- as it should. Tennessee lost to a bad Arkansas team - and it cost them. They still have as equal of a chance as anyone in the field to win a championship.
My problem is not with the automatic bids. I love that Clemson, Boise St and Arizona St are in. My problem is with them getting 1st round byes.
@@stevescheidjr4632 Really shouldn't matter in the long-run, right? If the Ohio States and Penn States, Etc. are the powerhouses that they are, they will have no problem winning............verdad?
Do they have a legit shot? I don’t think so.
They’ll need to expand to 14 to give the best 2 conference champs a bye or 16 teams without a bye. You can’t give byes to teams who don’t win their conference, otherwise why have conference championship.
Or make it just 8 teams. Which I still think is the best number.
@ I agree with 8, but they won’t cut back on teams now due to money. 14 at least, you’ll get big ten and sec champ to get the bye more years than most. If you go 16, no byes and can do seeding like NFL does with divison/wildcard
You can absolutely give byes to non conference champs. Its more of a joke that we gave boise state and arizona state byes.
Currently, no byes are given to non-champs.
A 16-team playoff system would have no byes therefore would solve these so called "issues" but I doubt it will because people will never be happy.
Not mad about alabama ole miss being left south Carolina genuinely got robbed because of that horrible game altering call against Lsu
That is absolutely a fact. The officials not the Bayou Bengals beat the Gamecocks.
But the horrid calls Bama got vs OU, which took away 2 TDs do not matter?
Oregon got cheated placed by far in the hardest bracket look how easy it is for Georgia to get to the finals all the best teams are in the upper bracket except Georgia!
First time I’ve ever seen Joel contradict himself. He is now advocating that the losers of the conference championship games be punished, even though last week he said the loser shouldn’t be punished for making it to an extra game.
He's upset about OSU not being seeded higher.
This is the honest version of Klatt that we need. Less of this Fox heavy narrative and SEC bashing every episode. Your insight is appreciated when it’s not directed against Foxs competitors every episode. We need intellectual honesty and fair voices of reason. Please keep this up.
It's about dang time!!! They were afraid of the backlash!!!!
Klatt went off here and IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Our sport just shafted the best team in the country. How is that logical.
They should just let the 4 champions pick where they want to be placed on the bracket. The top ranked picks first, so Oregon would probably choose to play the winner of SMU/Penn State, then let Georgia pick, then Boise, then ASU.
Remember last year when Alabama undeservingly took FSU's spot?? F Alabama...they didn't deserve it last year and they don't deserve it this year. Very happy to see them out.